Suresh @ Suresh Gopi v. The State Of Tamilnadu Rep. By The Inspector Of Police

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Criminal Jurisdiction ) Date : 25/06/2026 PRESENT The HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. DHANABAL Suresh @ Suresh Gopi, S/o.Murugan, W-2, Nesan Kala Street, Arasamaratheru, Narayanathevanpatti, Uthamapalayam Taluk, Theni District..

... Petitioner/Accused NO.4 Vs The State of Tamilnadu Rep., By the Inspector of Police, Rayappanpatti Police Station, Theni District.

Crime No. 277/2024..

... Respondent/Complainant For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sheenivasan, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr.G.Ganesh Kumar, Government Advocate (Crl.Side) PETITION FOR BAIL Under Sec.483 of BNSS 1/9

PRAYER :- C-32B. For Bail in Crime No. 277 of 2024 on the file of the respondent Police.

ORDER : The Court made the following order :- The petitioner / A4, who was arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 04.11.2024, for the offences punishable under Sections 8(c) r/w 20(b)(ii)(c), 29(1) and 25 of NDPS Act, in Crime No.277 of 2024 on the file of the respondent police, seeks bail.

2. The case of the prosecution is that on secret information on 03.11.2024 at 12.30 hours, the respondent police went to the scene of occurrence, where they found the accused persons were in possession of 24 kilograms of ganja. Hence, the case.

2/9

3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner is innocent and he was falsely implicated in this case and he has not committed any offence as alleged by the prosecution. Though the quantity mentioned as commercial quantity, there was no recovery from the petitioner. He would further submit that the co-accused were released on bail. The petitioner is in judicial custody from 04.11.2024. Hence, he prayed to grant bail to the petitioner.

4. The learned Government Advocate (crl. Side) appearing for the respondent would submit that the offence are grave in nature. The quantity involved in this case is commercial quantity and recovered through separate mahazar. The petitioner has three previous cases. Investigation has been completed and charge has also been filed before the concerned Court. 3/9

Hence, he opposed the grant of bail to the petitioner.

5. This Court heard both sides and perused the materials available on record.

6. Considering the rival submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, considering the nature of charges levelled against the petitioner, though the prosecution has stated that the quantity involved in this case is commercial quantity, the contraband was recovered from different person through separate mahazer and though the petitioner has three previous cases, the same are not similar kind of offences and in all cases, he was already released on bail and the co-accused has also been released on bail and the investigation has been completed and the charge sheet has also been filed and though the prosecution stated that there are records to show 4/9

that there was a conversation between the petitioner and the other accused, that can be tested only during the trial and considering the period of incarceration undergone by the petitioner from 04.11.2024, this Court is inclined to grant bail to the petitioner subject to the following conditions:

[a] Accordingly, the petitioner is ordered to be released on bail on condition to execute a bond for a sum of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) with two sureties each for a like sum to the satisfaction of the learned Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, and on further conditions that:

[b] the petitioner shall report before the learned Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Principal Special 5/9

Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai, at 10.30 a.m., and 05.00 p.m., on all working days, until further orders:

[c] the petitioner shall not commit any offence similar to the offence of which he/she is accused, or suspected, or of the commission of which he/she is suspected;

[d] the petitioner shall not abscond either during investigation or trial;

[e] the petitioner shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of the case so as to dissuade her from disclosing such facts to the Court or to any police officer or tamper with the evidence;

[f] On breach of any of the aforesaid conditions, the learned Judicial Magistrate/Trial Court is entitled to take 6/9

appropriate action against the petitioner in accordance with law as if the conditions have been imposed and the petitioner released on bail by the learned Magistrate/Trial Court himself as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in P.K.Shaji vs. State of Kerala [(2005)AIR SCW 5560].

[g] If the accused thereafter absconds, a fresh FIR can be registered under Section 269 BNS.

(P D B J) 25.06.2026 VSG 7/9

TO 1.The learned Additional District Judge/Presiding Officer, Principal Special Court for EC and NDPS Act Cases, Madurai.

2. The Superintendent, Central Prison, Madurai. 3.Inspector of Police, Rayappanpatti Police Station, Theni District.

4. The Additional Public Prosecutor, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.

8/9

P. DHANABAL,J., vsg

ORDER

IN CRL OP(MD) No.11736 of 2026 Date : 25/06/2026 9/9